Reply to Mr. P. Nezhdanov

Written:Written in May 1899Published:Published in December 1899 in the magazineZhizn.

      Signed:Vladimir Ilyin.

      Published according to the text in the magazine.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1964,

      Moscow,Volume 4,

      pages160-166.Translated:Transcription\Markup:R. CymbalaandD. WaltersPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2003).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

InIssue No. 4 ofZhizn,Mr. P. Nezhdanov examined articles by me
      and other authors on the market theory. I intend to reply to only one of
      Mr. Nezhdanov’s assertions— that in my article inNauchnoye
      Obozreniye, issue No. I for this year, I “distorted my struggle
      against the theory of third persons.” As far as the other questions are
      concerned, those raised by Mr. P. Nezhdanov in respect of the market
      theory and, in particular, of P. B. Struve’s views, I shall confine myself
      to a reference to my article in reply to Struve (“Once More on the
      Theory of Realisation”; the delay in its publication inNauchnoye Obozreniyewas due to circumstances over which the
      author had no control).

Mr.P. Nezhdanov maintains that “capitalist production does not
      suffer from any contradiction between production and consumption.” From
      this he concludes that Marx, in recognising this contradiction,
      “suffered from a serious internal contradiction” and that I
      am repeating Marx’s error.

Ibelieve Mr. Nezhdanov’s opinion to be a mistaken one (or one based on
      a misunderstanding) and cannot see any contradiction in Marx’s views.

Mr.P. Nezhdanov’s assertion that there is no contradiction between
      production and consumption in capitalism is so strange that it is only
      to be explained by the veryspecial meaningthat he attaches to
      the concept “contradiction.” Mr. P. Nezhdanov is of the opinion
      that “if there really were a contradiction between production and
      consumption that contradiction would provide a regular
      surplus-product” (p. 301; the same in the final theses,
      p. 316). This is an utterlyarbitrary and, in my opinion, utterly incorrect interpretation. In
      criticising my assertions on the contradiction between production and
      consumption in capitalist society, Mr.

      P. Nezhdanov should (I think) have told the reader how I understand that
      contradiction and should not have limited himself to an exposition of
      his own views on the essence and significance of that contradiction. The
      whole essence of the question (which has given rise to
      Mr. P. Nezhdanov’s polemic against me) is that I understand the
      contradiction under discussion quite differently from the way in which
      Mr. P. Nezhdanov wishes to understand it. I did not say anywhere that
      this contradiction shouldregularly[1]produce a surplus-product; I do not think so and such a view cannot be
      deduced from Marx’s words. The contradiction between production and
      consumption that is inherent in capitalism is due to the tremendous rate
      at which production is growing, to the tendency to unlimited expansion
      which competition gives it, while consumption (individual), if it grows
      at all, grows very slightly; the proletarian condition of the masses of
      the people makes a rapid growth of individual consumption impossible. It
      seems to me that any one reading carefully pages 20 and 30 of myStudies(the article on the Sismondists cited by
      Mr. P. Nezhdanov) and page 40 ofNauchnoye Obozreniye(1899,

      No. 1)[2]can convince himself that, from the outset, I gaveonly this
	meaningto the contradiction between production and consumption in
      capitalism. Indeed, no other meaning can be ascribed to this
      contradiction by one who adheres strictly to Marx’s theory. The
      contradiction between production and consumption that is inherent in
      capitalism consists only in this, that the growth of the national wealth
      proceeds side by side with the growth of the people’s poverty; that the
      productive forces of society increase without a corresponding increase
      in consumption by the people, without the employment of these productive
      forces for the benefit of the working masses. The contradictionunder discussion, understood in this sense, is a fact that does not. admit
      of any doubt and that is confirmed by the daily experience of millions of
      people, and it is the observation of this fact that leads the working men
      to the views that have found a full scientific expression in Marx’s
      theory. This contradiction does not, by any means, lead inevitably to the
      regular production of a surplus-product (as Mr. Nezhdanov would like to
      think). We can quite well imagine (if we argue from a purely theoretical
      standpoint about an ideal capitalist society) the realisation of the
      entire product in a capitalist society without any surplus-product,but we cannot imagine capitalismwithout a disparity between
      production and consumption. This disparity is expressed (as Marx has
      demonstrated clearly in his Schemes) by the fact that the production of
      the means of production can and must out strip the production of articles
      of consumption.

Mr.Nezhdanov, therefore, was completely mistaken in his deduction that
      the contradiction between production and consumption must regularly
      provide a surplus-product, and this mistake led to his unjustly accusing
      Marx of inconsistency. Marx, on the contrary, remains consistent when he
      shows:

1)that the productcanbe realised in a capitalist society (it goes
      without saying that this is true if proportionality between the various
      branches of industry is assumed); that it would be incorrect to introduce
      foreign trade or “third persons” to explain this realisation;

2)that the theories of the petty-bourgeois economists (à laProudhon) on the impossibility of realisingsurplus-valueare based
      on a complete misunderstanding of the very process of realisation in general;

3)that even with fully proportional, ideally smooth realisation we cannot
      imagine capitalism without a contradiction between production and
      consumption, without the tremendous growth of production being accompanied
      by an extremely slow growth (or even stagnation and worsening) of consumption
      by the people. Realisation is due more to means of production than to
      articles of consumption—this is obvious from Marx’s Schemes; and from
      this, in turn, it follows inevitably that “the more productiveness
      develops, the more it finds itself at variance with the narrow basis onwhich the conditions of consumption rest”

      (Marx).[8]it is obvious from all the passages inCapitaldevoted to the
      contradiction between production and

      consumption[3]that it isonly in this sensethat Marx understood the
      contradiction between production and consumption.

Incidentally,Mr. P. Nezhdanov is of the opinion that Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky also
      denies the contradiction between production and consumption in a capitalist
      society. I do not know whether this is true. Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky himself
      introduced into his book a scheme showing the possibility of the growth of
      production accompanied by a contraction of consumption (which, of course, is
      possible and actual under capitalism). How can one deny that we see here a
      contradiction between production and consumption, although there is no
      surplus-product?

Incharging Marx (and me) with inconsistency, Mr. P. Nezhdanov also lost
      sight of the fact that he should have explained, as a basis for his
      viewpoint, how one should understand the “independence” of the
      production of means of production from the production of articles of
      consumption. According to Marx, this “independence” is limited
      to the following: a certain (and constantly growing) part of the product
      which consists of means of production is realised by ex changes within the
      given department, i.e., exchanges of means of production for means of
      production (or the use of the product obtained,in

	natura,[4]for fresh production); but inthe final analysisthe manufacture
      of means of production is necessarily bound up with that of articles of
      consumption, since the former are not manufactured for their own sake, but
      only because more and more means of production are demand ed by the
      branches of industry manufacturing articles of

      consumption.[5]The views of the petty-bourgeois economists, therefore, do not differ from
      those of Marx because theformer recognised in general the connection between production and
      consumption in a capitalist society while the latter denied in general
      that connection (which would be absurd). The difference is that the
      petty-bourgeois economists considered this connection between production
      and consumption to be adirect one, that they thoughtproduction follows consumption.Marx showed that this connection
      isan indirect one, that it only makes itself feltin the
      final analysis, because in capitalist societyconsumption follows
      production.But the connection nevertheless exists, even if it is
      indirect; consumption must, in the final analysis, follow production,
      and. if the productive forces are driving towards an unlimited growth of
      production, while consumption is restricted by the proletarian condition
      of the masses of the people, there is undoubtedly a contradiction
      present. This contradiction does not signify the impossibility of

      capitalism,[6]but it does signify that its transformation to a higher form is a
      necessity:

      the stronger this contradiction becomes, the more developed become the
      objective conditions for this transformation, as well as the subjective
      conditions, i.e., the workers’ consciousness of this contradiction.

Thequestion now arises: what position could Mr. Nezhdanov adopt on the
      question of the “independence” of the means of production as
      regards articles of consumption? One of two: either he will completely
      deny any dependence between them, will assert the possibility of realising
      means of production that arein no way connectedwith articles of
      consumption, that are not connected even in “the final
      analysis”—in which case he will inevitably descend to the
      absurd, or he will admit, following Marx, that in the final analysis means
      of production are connected with articles of consumption, in which case he
      must admit the correctness of my understanding of Marx’s theory.

Inconclusion, let me take an example to illustrate these abstract
      arguments with concrete data. It is known that in any capitalist society
      exceptionally low wages (=the lowlevel of consumption by the masses of the people) often hinder the
      employment of machinery. What is more, it even happens that machines
      acquired by entrepreneurs are in disuse because the price of labour drops
      so low that manual labour becomes more profitable to the

      owner![7]The existence of a contradiction between consumption and production,
      between the drive of capitalism to develop the productive forces to an
      unlimited extent and the limitation of this drive by the proletarian
      condition, the poverty and unemployment of the people, is, in this case,
      as clear as daylight. But it is no less clear that it is correct to draw
      one single conclusion from this contradiction—that the development
      of the productive forces themselves must, with irresistible force, lead to
      the replacement of capitalism by an economy of associated producers. It
      would, on the other hand, be utterly incorrect to draw from this
      contradiction the conclusion that capitalism mustregularlyprovide a surplus-product, i.e., that capitalism cannot, in general,
      realise the product, and can, therefore, play no progressive historical
      role, and so on.

[1]I stressregularlybecause the irregular production of a
	surplus-product (crises) is inevitable in capitalist society as a result
	of the disturbance in proportion between the various branches of
	industry. But a certain state of consumption is one of the elements of
	proportion.
      —Lenin

[2]See present edition, Vol. 2, pp. 155 and 167 and pp. 58-59 of the
	present volume.—Ed.

[3]These passages are quoted in my article inNauchnoye Obozreniye,
	1899, No.I(see present volume, p. 56, et
	seq.—Ed.)  and are repeated in the first chapter ofThe Development of Capitalism in Russia, pp. 18-19. (See
	present edition, Vol. 3, p. 5657.—Ed.)
    —Lenin

[4]In its natural form.—Ed.

[5]Das Kapital, III, 1,

      289.[9]Quoted by me inNauchnoye Obozreniye, p. 40 (see present volume,
	p. 59.—Ed.), and inThe Development of
	Capitalism, 17. (See present edition, Vol. 3,
	p. 55.—Ed.)
    —Lenin

[6]Studies, p. 20 (see present edition, Vol. 2, p. 155.—Ed.);Nauchnoye Obozreniye, No. 1, p. 41 (see present volume,
      p. 60.—Ed.);The Development of Capitalism,
      pp. 19-20. (See present edition, Vol. 3, p. 58.—Ed.) If this
      contradiction were to lead to “a regular surplus product,” it would
      signify precisely the impossibility of capitalism.
    —Lenin

[7]I bring an instance of this phenomenon in the sphere of Russian capitalist
      agriculture inThe Development of Capitalism In Russia, page
      165. (See present edition, Vol. 3, p. 234.—Ed.) Similar
      phenomena are not individual instances but are the usual andinevitableconsequences of the basic features of capitalism,
    —Lenin

[8]Karl Marx,Capital, Vol. III, Moscow, 1959, p. 240.

[9]Karl Marx,Capital, Vol. III, Moscow, 1959, p. 299.